[Cite as State v. Helms, 2023-Ohio-4225.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO

Appellee

v.

JOEL HELMS

Appellant

C.A. Nos. 30320

30321

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT

ENTERED IN THE

BARBERTON MUNICIPAL COURT

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO

CASE Nos. 21 CRB 00259

22 CRB 00310

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: November 22, 2023

FLAGG LANZINGER, Judge

{¶1} Joel Helms appeals from the judgment of the Barberton Municipal Court. This court 

affirms.

I.

{¶2} On February 3, 2021, Helms was charged with one count of theft, in violation of 

R.C. 2913.02. On February 21, 2022, Helms was charged with one count of obstructing official 

business, in violation of R.C. 2921.31 and one count of criminal trespass, in violation of R.C. 

2911.2l(A)(l). Helms entered a plea of not guilty to the charges. Helms retained an attorney who 

represented both him and his co-defendant. 

{¶3} On December 14, 2021, Helms’s attorney filed a motion to withdraw as counsel for 

Helms’s co-defendant. Helms’s attorney also indicated an intention to continue representing 
2

 

Helms. However, the trial court removed Helms’s attorney, determining he was disqualified due 

to a conflict of interest. Helms continued pro se and the matter proceeded to a jury trial.

{¶4} The jury found Helms guilty on all counts. The trial court sentenced Helms to serve 

ten days in Community Alternative Sentencing Center (C.A.S.C.), and an aggregate $110 fine. 

Helms now appeals raising five assignments of error for our review. To facilitate analysis, we 

choose to address the assignments of error in a non-sequential order.

II.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

CAN A PREJUDICED COURT PROVIDE JUSTICE?

{¶5} In his assignment of error, Helms makes multiple arguments alleging the trial court 

was prejudiced. Helms contends that a change of venue was required because the trial court showed 

prejudice in its comments and actions. Helms argues that the trial court abused its discretion when 

it removed his retained trial counsel of choice because of a conflict of interest. Helms also argues 

that the court should not have allowed video evidence to be admitted. We disagree.

{¶6} This Court will first analyze Helms’s argument pertaining to the trial court’s 

removal of Helms’s retained trial counsel. Criminal defendants enjoy a constitutional right to 

counsel. Sixth Amendment to the Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 10. “[One] element of [that] 

right is the right of a defendant who does not require appointed counsel to choose who will 

represent him.” United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 144 (2006). If a defendant has the 

ability to retain a qualified attorney, the Sixth Amendment generally protects his choice of counsel. 

Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617, 625 (1989). “A court commits 

structural error when it wrongfully denies a defendant his counsel of choice, so a defendant need 

not demonstrate further prejudice.” State v. Miller, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27048, 2015-Ohio-279, 
3

 

¶ 8, citing Gonzalez-Lopez at 150. The wrongful denial “entitles [the defendant] to an automatic 

reversal of his conviction.” State v. Chambliss, 128 Ohio St.3d 507, 2011-Ohio-1785, ¶ 18. 

Moreover, because the right to one’s choice of counsel is fundamental, a pretrial ruling that 

removes one’s retained counsel of choice is immediately appealable. See id. at syllabus. Accord 

State v. Rivera, 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 16CA011057, 16CA011059, 16CA011060, 16CA011061, 

16CA011063, 16CA011073, 16CA011075, 2017-Ohio-8514, ¶ 5. 

{¶7} The trial court’s order removing Helms’s retained counsel was a final appealable 

order. Chambliss at ¶ 2. If Helms wished to challenge the trial court’s judgment removing his 

attorney, he had to file a timely appeal within 30 days of the entry of that judgment. He failed to 

do so.

{¶8} Because Helms did not timely appeal the trial court’s December 17, 2021, order 

removing his retained counsel, he has failed to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction to address his 

challenge. See Gatlin v. Harmon, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 19CA011597, 2021-Ohio-1852, ¶ 13, 

quoting BankUnited v. Klug, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 16CA010923, 2016-Ohio-5769, ¶ 12. 

Accordingly, Helms’s challenge to the trial court’s disqualification of retained counsel is not 

properly before us for consideration.

{¶9} Regarding Helms’s other arguments, we observe that Helms does not point this 

Court to any caselaw or develop a cogent argument supporting his contentions that a change of 

venue was required or that the court erred when it allowed video evidence to be admitted. An 

appellant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating the error on appeal and substantiating 

his arguments in support. Angle v. W. Res. Mut. Ins. Co., 9th Dist. Medina No. 2729-M, 1998 WL 

646548, *1 (Sept. 16, 1998); Frecska v. Frecska, 9th Dist. Wayne No. 96CA0086, 1997 WL 

625488, *2 (Oct. 1, 1997). See also App.R. 16(A)(7) and Loc.R. 16(A)(7). “As this Court has 
4

 

repeatedly held, ‘[i]f an argument exists that can support [an] assignment of error, it is not this 

[C]ourt’s duty to root it out.’” (Alterations sic.) In re Guardianship of Jenkins, 9th Dist. Summit 

No. 29981, 2022-Ohio-1043, ¶ 10, quoting King v. Divoky, 9th Dist. Summit No. 29769, 2021-

Ohio-1712, ¶ 50.

{¶10} App.R. 16 provides in pertinent part the following:

(A) Brief of the appellant[.] The appellant shall include in its brief * * * all of the 

following:

* * *

(7) An argument containing the contentions of the appellant with respect to each 

assignment of error presented for review and the reasons in support of the 

contentions, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record on 

which appellant relies. * * * . 

App.R. 16(A)(7). See also Hershberger v. Shelmar Realty, Inc., 9th Dist. Summit No. 

28110, 2017-Ohio-353, ¶ 12; Loc.R. 16(A)(7).

{¶11} In addition to reflecting the requirements specified in App.R. 16(A)(7), Loc.R. 

16(A)(7) provides that an appellant's brief must separately discuss each assignment of error, “and 

shall include the standard * * * of review applicable to that assignment of error * * *.” 

{¶12} Helms has set forth two additional arguments within this assignment of error that 

are neither substantiated by specific arguments, nor supported by citations to authorities or statutes. 

Helms does not provide a standard of review as required by the Local Rules. Thus, Helms has 

failed to meet his burden on appeal, and for this reason we decline to address his additional 

arguments. Helms’s second assignment of error is overruled.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

MUST A CONTRACTUAL PARTY PERFORM AN ACT CONTRARY

TO THEIR WELL- BEING OR PUBLIC POLICY?
5

 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III

CAN HELMS BE PROSECUTED FOR TRESPASS WHERE HIS 

PROTECTED RIGHTS TO PERSONAL AND REAL PROPERTY HAVE

NOT BEEN TERMINATED BY NOTICE AND HEARING?

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR IV

THERE MUST BE AN EXPECTANCE THAT AN OFFICER GAVE AN 

ORDER BEFORE ONE COULD OBEY.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR V

HELMS HAS RIGHT TO KNOW CHARGES AND SENTENCE TO 

AFFORD PROPER DEFENSE.

{¶13} With regard to Helms’s other assignments of error, we observe, as above, that 

Helms has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating the error on appeal. As outlined above, and 

applicable to our analysis here, an appellant bears the burden of affirmatively demonstrating the 

error on appeal and substantiating his or her arguments in support.

{¶14} Helms has set forth four assignments of error that are not connected to any specific 

arguments, nor supported by citations to authorities or statutes. Helms sets forth different 

contentions in his assignments of error, some of which are mere statements of fact, without 

articulating the relation of these assertions to any authorities or ultimate error at the trial court level 

in this case. Additionally, Helms fails to provide standards of review as required by the Local 

Rules. Thus, Helms has failed to meet his burden on appeal.

{¶15} Accordingly, Helms's first, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error are 

overruled.
6

 

III.

{¶16} Helms’s assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Barberton 

Municipal Court is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Barberton Municipal 

Court, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period 

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to 

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the 

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.

Costs taxed to Appellant.

JILL FLAGG LANZINGER

FOR THE COURT

STEVENSON, J.

CONCURS.

CARR, P. J.

CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
7

 

APPEARANCES:

JOEL HELMS, pro se, Appellant.

JENNIFER A. ROBERTS, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.